tv Forbes on Fox FOX Business September 24, 2017 3:00am-3:30am EDT
craze that ben loves so much. neil: ben, what do you think of that? what are you doing? >> it's fine, but i would stick with the spdr's through the high and low, through hell or high wate if mr. buffet likes them, i like them. neil: and here is dave. >> as president of the united states, i will always put america first, just like you, as the leaders of your countries, will always and should always put your countries first. david: our president taking a lot of heat for wanting to put america first? but why? another billionaire at the 100th birthday bash for forbes is proving the president is absolutely right. take a listen. >> being short america has been a loser game, and that -- (applause) >> and i just predict to you, it will continue to be a
loser's game and when 100 years from now the forbes 400 is 135 years old, i predict, no short sellers are going to get on the list, it's just going to be the people who bet on america and i'm one of them and i hope all of you join me, thank you. david: two billionaires from different parties saying essentially the same thing, is that why we should put america first? hi, everybody, i'm david asman, welcome to forbes on fox. let's go in focus to find out with steve forbes, steve, elizabeth mcdonald, john tamny and steve, first of all, happy anniversary, a good run. >> i want to emphasize, that's the magazine, not me. [laughter] >> we understand, steve, although you look good for a hundred, i was going to say. what about this? america first, it's being criticized by the media and others, but warren buffett is saying essentially the same thing. >> in very different ways, but what we have here, david, is the reaction to the previous
president obama who seemed to put our enemies first, appeasing north korea, grovelling before iran, reset with russia, fake red line in syria. you can see the prime minister of japan and south korea, visibly they're reassured by the tough line that trump took because their security is at sake and they're in this together. david: as john said, every country puts their country first and then puts the others. >> i want to be sure, he's not saying the same thing as warren buffett. warren buffett is looking at the u.s., and donald trump is looking at carnage. i would be about america first if it was removing us from foreign entanglement. with trump it's about protectionism.
david: i don't think that's what he meant, but even though basically that's what the entire media is saying. look at headlines, trump shows america first is incoherent, with epithets and it goes on and on. i think the media really didn't get it. >> the media is spoiling for a fight. i mean, really, if chancellor merkel said that or president trump xi in china or prime minister in india said the same thing, no one would bat an eye. so it was the second half of trump's statement, and i expect you to do the same. what could be more common-sensical than that? and as far as protectionism, i'm a free trader and, but i don't see the protectism. i hear the rhetoric, but i don't see it in practice to the degree that john is worried about. david: and e-mack, it was a breath of fresh air to hear the president of the united nations, extolling the values
of america. >> steve is right. compared to president obama, the miss jane hathaway and-- >> obscure tv reference, go ahead. >> he put his legacy first, that's how obama spoke, and he kept the u.s. economy locked in his teacher's faculty lounge as he finger-wagged the rest of us. americans, we're tired of that and we're getting back to normal and to rich's point, i think that rich is right, too. i think if jfk today made his watchman on the walls of world freedom speech he was supposed to deliver the day he was assassinated, i think the media would have gone after jfk for saying that. david: and david, don't americans want america to be thought of first by the president? >> they do and i don't know about the criticisms or critiques 'cause i only watch fox news so i haven't seen those critiques, but that said. david: and put them up for you, go ahead. >> i think that most americans are for america first and for other countries pursuing that
same course of action. the real question is, will it -- and we'll see, time will tell, whether this is to the exclusion of our allies and working together. and i will say this, that a strong partnership comes from strong partners. so, putting america first, germany putting itself first and us working collaboratively and not to the exclusion of others, i think will make for global leadership and a path for the nation. david: that's an optimistic view. sabrina, i have a feeling that all of this talk about isolation is from people that didn't look at the whole speech. while the president said put america first, he was also talking about american values and about what america has done to help the rest of the world. let's just play another little clip from his speech. go ahead. >> today, if we do not invest ourselves, our hearts and our minds in our nations, if we
will not build strong families, safe communities and healthy so seats for-- societities for ourselves, no one can do it for us. david: it's less about isolationism and more about reliance. right? >> sort of, david. the speech was not as bad as portrayed. it was all over the place. there's a difference between rhetoric and policy. and the policy is ones you would have heard from any republican and democrat about humanitarian aid and all of that was sensible. sometimes the challenge is he doesn't quite think through what he's saying. yes, i think a president should put america first, but sometimes putting america first means working with our allies to assure that we're getting the best intelligence, for instance, and thwarting terrorist attacks around the world. it doesn't have to be a bad thing. david: that's the point, he said that in the speech.
it was a long speech. i didn't think it was rambling. john bolton for what it's worth, one of the smartest guys i know, said it was one of the best speeches he's given. i thought it was coherent and talking about america's role in the world. >> and with the prime minister of japan, that shows collaboration. and the president of japan called him donald several times and showing they want to work together. david: john, you're a big self-reliant kind of guy, one of the virtues of america that we could export successfully to any country in the world. and at another point, from the first moments, the american story is what is possible when people take ownership of the future. what's wrong with na that? >> nothing among with that and i'm for self-reliance, i don't see the need to have partnerships around the world. how does it put america first
to have u.s. troops, to have so much u.s. money involved in protection in the rest of the world and i don't get that. david: rich, how would you answer that? >> well, actually trump has pushed back on that, i think he said countless times, germany and other affluent countries should be spending more on their self-defense and we also learned from the 1930's that their defense is ultimately our defense. we can't isolate ourselves from the world. we tried that in the 30's. and traumatically and murderously didn't work. david: you've got to learn from history. more on the forbes 100 celebration and how you can get an invite to the next anniversary bash. you want to stay up for that. the president calling the iran deal the worst deal ever, an embarrassment. but is the damage done? and will tearing up the deal and will tearing up the deal make any difference
week, as president trump calls out iran, and the nuclear deal, as one of the worst deals ever made. but several european leaders pledging to stay in the deal no matter what we do and they are providing iran with billions of dollars in trade. so, rich, would canceling the deal really make much of a difference? >> economically, maybe not, but you still have to cancel it. it's the right thing to do. one of the important things, it reassures our best ally in the middle east, israel, that we are with them, something that the obama administration wasn't so sure about. every other trading partner that we have, saudi arabia, the gulf states, they're terrified of an iran-dominated middle east so it was the right thing to say. david: david, a lot of the damage has already been done, in particular, giving so much money or giving access to so much more money, $100 billion they immediately had access to, the iranians after the deal
broke. so has the damage been done? >> the deal has only been in place for a year and we have to see -- and i haven't heard any evidence of damage being done. and with $100 billion released to them that was formerly seized or on hold, i don't see yet being a problem. that said, i think we have to look, also, domestically. you know, when you criticize something, you better have something to replace it with or a solution, and we see domestically with health care, trump and the republicans have had two chances-- >> okay, let's stay on point with iran. >> i'm using that as an example. domestically to spill over to foreign policy, you don't want to criticize something and i have not seen a solution from the trump administration on what would contain in place of the iran deal, contain their -- what was their drive to getting a nuclear weapon, so that's what we have to think of. david: the bottom line is the europeans are know the going to
help us no matter what we do because they're getting tons of money now, now with the iranian deal, imports and exports have increased dramatically with the europeans and they're in it for the money, frankly. >> i think it would be a fine idea if the world got the sense that the u.s. is not going to be the same pushover it used to be in dealing with thuggish nations like iran or cuba. by the way, if there are french and german companies sending machinery to iran that could be use today make bombs, i think that would be great to publish that. david: this is the future of our existence hanging in the balance here, no? >> i'm not sure about what's america first getting ourselves involved in the dysfunctional part of the world. i didn't like the deal under obama because i think it legitimizes a nation that's not legitimate. the fact that we've got to negotiate with a country to be
good means the agreement is not worth the paper it's printed on. cancel it, because it's worthless. david: sabrina, david and john see the dangers as insignificant to the united states, but on friday, there was another one of these military parades they had in tehran at which they emphasized their inter-continental ballistic missiles, which now have a range of 1200 miles, it doesn't sound like a like, but it's enough to hit israel, saudi arabia and a lot of other allies. >> yeah, david, i think this deal has a lot of problems, but not for the reason that john does. i think we want to legitimize this country because it's frightening. this is a dictatorship dressed up as a democracy and it's not. my concern, it gives us a false accepts of security that somehow because we have this deal in place that we're better off, that we're safer. why are we ignoring, you know, saudi arabia, for instance, which is very much the same threat to us? so i worry that sometimes we have these deals and we tie them up with a pretty bow and we're look, okay, problem solved when in reality it's not
and we're better off tearing it up and starting over again. >> and you're the diplomate here. you're going to put this altogether for us. should we be as concerned with iran as donald trump seems to be? after all, there is strong evidence that they've been working with north korea on a nuclear plan of some sort, so, even if they're not doing stuff right now, nuclear-oriented in iran, they may be doing it with proxies over north korea. >> look at the headlines in the last few months, do we want another north korea this time in the volatile middle east? that's where iran is going, they've made it clear from the get go. make it plane to the european countries, do they want to trade with us or iran? i think they'll go with us at the end of the day. david: and maybe hanging in the balance may be too dramatic, but what happens is at stake here, no. you said it exactly
right. the missile with a 1200 mile range is a significant event. you nuclear tip that and suddenly europe is under threat. david: all right, folks, that's going to be it for the discussion. the cashin' in gang getting there at the bottom of the hour. my co-host melissa francis hosting today. what do you have? >> i'm not used to be separated from you. republicans are finally rolling out the tax reform plan next week and some now worry it won't include across the board tax cuts promised. if that's the case, does it economic boom still look likely. and you'll see if they're right. david: we'll be together on monday. we'll be watching. first, mass destruction after an earthquake hits mexico. and hurricane maria in the
what did we do before phones? they save us from getting lost, getting hungry, and getting tired of places like this. phones changed everything - shouldn't the way pay for them change too? introducing xfinity mobile. where you can pay for data by the gig, and share it across all of your lines. no one else lets you do that. see how much you can save when you pay by the gig. xfinity mobile. it's a new kind of network designed to save you money. call, visit, or go to xfinitymobile.com.
>> parts of mexico flattened by a major quake as several caribbean islands get flattened by major hurricanes. the u.s. also gets hit with natural disasters, but it seems like we suffer less damage when it happens. why is that? steve, you say there's one major reason why, what is it? >> let's say if we were hit the way that puerto rico was hit with the storms we would have been much worse off than we were in texas and florida, but the key thing is, the richer a country is the more resources
it can have to build structures that survive the storms. even in mexico, still a developing nation after 1985, had enough resources when you look at mexico city, the post 1985 buildings better than pre-. you get the capital to deal with these better. david: e-mack, one thing that makes me sick, this proves that we have to have better regulations. i covered mexico for years, mexico has more regulations than we do, but they don't implement them. >> i agree with you. it's awful what's going on in mexico. and steve is right, most buildings that collapsed pre-date 1985. they started to get smart about the types of materials and building stronger buildings, but they did build in a lake bed that's underneath mexico city and it's about being smart. you don't need more regulations. mexico is trying to be smarter
about its buildings. david: rich, it's really about real competition and rule of law, right? >> well, rule of law specifically to prevent corruption where the builder is not the most qualified builder, but happens to be some pal of the people awarding the contract. and you need a free press, too. people need to know. there needs to be transparency about who is a good builder and who is a bad builder. all of that helps. >> and john, you hear so much talk how competition it, you know, dog-eat-dog and leads to more people being hurt. in fact, very often it leads to more people being helped and surviving natural disasters like this, right? >> of course, the profit mode is the most humane on earth. good structure is not a result of regulation, they're an effect of prosperity. where there's prosperity the buildings are better. look how many more americans survive hurricaned today as welt grows, lives are saved.
david: what is the message to mexico and others with these things. >> i would be slow to to attribute building failures to in other countries to corruption and incompetence. safety costs money and steve is right about that. i think that mexican structures will be better as the wealth improves. david: sabrina, go ahead. >> if we look the a the scope of the withhold world, it's know the that poor. it has oil and resources. where the things are the safest sort of the city center of mexico city, there's a vibrant life now and most of the damage was more on the periphery. so i think there's a connection between not just resources, but corruption and how that government is operated. david: steve, quickly, i think that sabrina makes a good point. mexico is rich, rich in natural resources, particularly oil, and they still kind of screw things up when there are natural disasters. >> that's why you need a more
vibrant middle class and they've got economic reform still to do that happen. they should be having the highest growth rates or near highest in the world. those wounds are self-inflicted. david: they're wonderful people and wish them the best. and wish them the best. mexico, we're praying for you. ♪and i ♪i will always love you, i ♪i will always love you ♪i hope life treats you kind
>> and we are back with a fix to help you get on the next forbes anniversary cover. elizabeth, what do you have? >> vanguard extended market fund. it's a small to mid cap fund, it's pretty cheap, too. david: do you like it, bill? >> you're buying the sprinkles on the ice cream of the your main course should be a big company. david: chevron, big oil, why do you like it. they've been around for a century and going pretty strong.
david: e-mark. >> some of the numbers are not going strong, it looks weak on that front. david: that's it for forbes on fox. thank you for watching, have a great weekend. keep it right here, the number one business block with my co-host melissa francis. that's next. >> republicans finally expected to reveal their tax plan this week, but reports say it's not going to be big and bold with tax cuts for all that president trump promised. someone here says if we don't get those big and bold cuts, we won't get the economic boom that we need. hi, i'm melissa francis and welcome in to cashin' in. our cashin' in crew, jessica, gary, and scott martin, all-stars, in my opinion. welcome, everyone. >> hi. melissa: let me start with you, does our economy need big and gold tax cuts this week? >> we need it big time. the trajectory of this country for years has been higher taxes